"Harper speaking to Canada's dark side?"

[MarkOttawa]

Stuff and nonsense from Thomas Walkom of the Crvena Zvezda,
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/687556

leading to this post at Dust my Broom:

Who's fighting terrorists? Or, delusional punditry
http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12351:whos-fighting-terrorists-or-delusional-columnists&catid=47:canadiana

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Stuff and nonsense from Thomas Walkom of the Crvena Zvezda,
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/687556

leading to this post at Dust my Broom:

Who's fighting terrorists? Or, delusional punditry
http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12351:whos-fighting-terrorists-or-delusional-columnists&catid=47:canadiana

Mark
Ottawa

While Harper may have certain philosophies he is ever the pragmatist.  The Liberals never asked for the return of Khadr, entered the war in Afghanistan, and had problems with the imprisonment and supposed torture of Canadians abroad.  I don't get the feeling that Harper is much more hawkish than the previous government.  All the items mentioned are simply decisions that come with governing and I don't see a partisan tone to any of it.  The reason people govern is that they are credible and their views coincide with the largest number of voters.  With the Bloc, Greens, NDP, and Liberals fighting it out in the loony left in the last election, the only thing that surprises me is the lack of a majority. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

The slagging of Canada continues in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/True+North+strong+mean/1944224/story.html

The True North strong and mean


By Janice Kennedy, The Ottawa Citizen

August 30, 2009

Two kinds of people reacted to news of Ted Kennedy's death last week. The first -- not all liberals, either -- spoke of Kennedy's hard work in the United States Senate, his dream of universal healthcare, his commitment to working people, civil rights and equality.

This "most imperfect man," wrote analyst William Bradley, was also a powerful advocate for progressive principles. Barack Obama predictably (though accurately) observed that, "For America, he was a defender of a dream." In another variation on the visionary theme, Joe Biden said of his old friend, "He was never small."

The other kind of reaction to Kennedy's death could be summed up in one word: "Chappaquiddick."

Not "vision" or "health-care reform," not "peacemaking" or even "Camelot." Just the controversial 40-year-old event, the ugliest single moment from the late senator's 77 years on earth, nearly 47 of them in public service. The small souls who spend their days hanging out in discussion forums at Free Republic, one of the U.S ultra-right's more popular online homes, greeted news of Kennedy's death characteristically, flinging around words like "traitor," "coward," "disgrace"-- and, yes, references to the 1969 event. Chappaquiddick minds in a narrow, ungenerous world.

But the Chappaquiddick faction is not limited to either the United States or the senior senator from Massachusetts. It's a state of mind, a summation of everything that is small and cribbed and contemptible -- not unlike the sour (and embarrassing) one-line statement of perfunctory condolence on Wednesday from our own prime minister.

Chappaquiddick-type people possess a meanness of spirit that goes beyond simple politics. They're responsible for a creeping diminution of vision and values. In Canada, which used to appreciate largeness of soul, they even have a government platform, thanks to Stephen Harper and company.

Consider the dramatic case of Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr, picked up by the U.S. military in Afghanistan at 15, or child-soldier age. When Harper's government announced last week it would appeal -- again -- a ruling that it demand the Canadian-born Khadr's repatriation, lawyer Dennis Edney said he wasn't surprised. "We are used to this mean-spirited approach."

But this government's disgraceful stand on Khadr -- the only western detainee still in Guantanamo -- is just part of it. The limited worldview, the impulse toward whatever is most ungenerous, is how it operates.

If you're a Canadian in trouble outside your country, don't call home for help, especially if you're not -- how to put this? -- a born-and-bred traditional Canadian. If you're a Somali-born woman with a wonky passport photo, or an autistic Somali-born man stranded for three years in Kenya -- forget about it. If you're a Canadian convicted of murder in, say, a U.S. state with the death penalty, don't look to your government to seek clemency. Never mind that, as a nation officially opposed to capital punishment, it has always done so before. This is the new Canada.

And we may be in for a lot more of this, according to current polls. Voters -- perhaps with warm-and-fuzzy sweaters dancing in their heads, or swayed by negative campaigning, or believing that the Conservatives really do have the market cornered on sound economic moves and the right priorities -- just may give Harper's bunch a new mandate at the next election.

But I can't believe many of them will be voting for this government's vision -- or lack thereof. Victory would come in spite of that.

Curiously, the issue isn't even entirely political, in the traditional sense. The small-mindedness seeping stealthily into our public life is actually not a popular choice -- how could it be? -- but the option of a minority, the puny among us, who are infecting us all with the toxin.

Last week, CBC Radio's The Current featured an incisive analysis of the Harper government's position on Khadr from University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes (who noted that the government has strategically replaced the term "child soldier" with "teen terrorist") and historian Desmond Morton. Among other things, the discussions suggested the notion that the new pettiness being foisted on the national character is the work of just a segment of the Conservative party.

This, of course, is not the same party as the one that once embraced the word "progressive" in its label and character. As much as any liberal's, or Liberal's, Brian Mulroney's foreign policy included opposition to the prosecution of child soldiers. Nor was Mulroney himself ever squeamish about his opposition to capital punishment, like John Diefenbaker before him.

In other words, today's new national nastiness is emphatically not the legacy of the Progressive Conservatives. It is not the natural inclination of people who once identified with the PCs but now find themselves trapped, bizarrely, in what must feel like an airless splinter wing of the old (and, frankly, regressive) Reform party.

I suspect that this helpless spectatorship is as frustrating to them as to Canadians farther to the left on the political spectrum. Watching the national soul being whittled down by those who know only the narrow path is exhausting and saddening, especially when the path may be less ideological than just tragically limited. Perhaps mean thinkers are simply not gifted and lack the tools to think broadly.

Whatever the reason, they lead shrivelled lives, which is entirely their right. The tragic thing is, they want the rest of us to do the same, individually and nationally.

It is time to say, "Enough."

Janice Kennedy writes here on Sundays.

E-mail: 4janicekennedy@gmail.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen​

But, see here where another leftie (Michael Valpy of the Good Grey Globe) says: ” The Canadian median age in 1967 was 26, when Pierre Trudeau was getting ready to lead the country. It is now 43. Thus, not surprisingly, for the first time since Ekos began asking Canadians 15 years ago how they self-identify, a slightly larger number label themselves small-c conservative rather than small-l liberal, reinforcing policy indicators such as declining support for pacifism and a single-payer public health-care system.” That’s one of the real inconvenient truths: most people grow up; their priorities change; most people are, naturally, selfish – they want to help the less fortunate, here, there and everywhere, but only after they have provided, adequately, for themselves and their families.

I, personally, am ashamed at how the bumblers in DFAIT have treated too many Canadians. But I’m not overly surprised; the foreign service has been in decline since 1968; it is no longer the crème de a la crème of our public service, it is a backwater filled with second rate, unhappy, poorly led people. A whole lot of Canadians may not have liked the old, elite, Oxbridge educated foreign service. It certainly wasn't “representative of Canada” but it knew how to do the nation’s business, often despite idiotic political “leaders.” After a generation of bi-partisan policy vandalism the foreign service fails, miserably, at everything.

But the loony left now has a platform – the death of Kennedy – from which it can attack Harper and the hated, feared, red-neck reformers.

 

[ltmaverick25]

I think Janice Kennedy should be appointed Queen of small-mindedness.  While reading her entire article, I couldnt help but think that she is taking an extremely narrow, and less then one sided view of Canadian politics.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Small mindedness, narrow mindedness and, indeed, closed mindedness are the hallmarks of the political left. They can afford to be closed minded because they know what is best for the rest of us: the “good thing” is intuitively obvious to them.

The problem for the real, classical liberal is that (s)he must accept that each individual can and will make the individual decisions that are “best” for them and, by so doing, they will change the world, broadly for the “better”. Thus we can never “know” what is “good” or “bad” only what has the most utility for ourselves and does not seem harmful to others.

The loony lefty/pseudo-liberal has no such problem. There is a received wisdom and questions of ethics cannot be allowed to stand in the way of “doing good.” Good, by the way, does not equal “right.”

We will see a lot more of this if we have an election in 2009. The loony left fringe will be baying at the moons – they, most of ‘em, see several.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Typically, an introduction of a current event (Kennedy's demise) to engage the reader, then launch into a small minded, vindictive attack on the PM and the CPC. The true point of the whole article. A pitiful women who brings to mind the image af the shrill, lunatic harpy.

For those too young to know the term 'harpy', it is not a member of the Prime Minister's fan club. ;D

harpy - 3 dictionary results

Har⋅py  /ˈhɑrpi/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahr-pee] 
–noun, plural -pies.
1. Classical Mythology. a ravenous, filthy monster having a woman's head and a bird's body.
2. (lowercase) a scolding, nagging, bad-tempered woman; shrew.
3. (lowercase) a greedy, predatory person.

 

[MarkOttawa]

E.R. Campbell: As a former Foreign Service Officer, who left External Affairs in 1988 after 14 years in, I can only agree with the thrust of what you say.  Though I would hate to think myself "second rate" .

One problem that has not been satisfactorily addressed over 25 years is the problems spouses have working at decent and well-paid jobs abroad.  Or having any real career.  Most foreign service families are effectively one and a half earners at best, just not sufficient for most in today's world.  While people may put up with financial shortfalls in their twenties and early thirties to enjoy the "adventure" (maybe yes, maybe no) of serving abroad, many FSOs then get out (esp. the very talented) in order to secure their families' financial future and their spouses' personal prospects.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[George Wallace]

......... many FSOs then get out (esp. the very talented) in order to secure their families' financial future and their spouses' personal prospects.

I always thought that the FS was extremely well paid.  Perhaps that being the reason so many flock to it.  I would have expected them to be, just for the reasons you had stated above.  If they aren't then I can also see why many would leave for the reasons you have also stated.  This creates quite a sad state of affairs.

 

[MarkOttawa]

George Wallace: No better paid than home public servants of roughly comparable rank/status--and usually with worse chances for promotion.  And allowances abroad generally just keep things even.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

...That’s one of the real inconvenient truths: most people grow up; their priorities change; most people are, naturally, selfish – they want to help the less fortunate, here, there and everywhere, but only after they have provided, adequately, for themselves and their families.

There's another nail pounded squarely.  Most people do indeed change their priorities as they age.

But  ;D

Shades of Hutchison and Kames

I disagree on motive.  Is it selfish to focus one's efforts on advancing the prospects of your offspring in a competitive environment? 
As you rightly point out as people age more of them have offspring to consider.  The need to provide for them allows the individual to pursue  courses of action that when single would be seen only as self-serving and thus contemptible.  When the individual acts in loco parentis (or should that be in parentes) then the same act can be construed not as self-serving but as a necessary action to protect the interests of those that can't protect themselves.  It now becomes a generous act.

An individual without a family can afford to stand back and let a friend take a promotion because the loss of additional income only affects the individual.  It is easy to be generous.

The same individual with a family, foreswearing the promotion to the benefit of a friend, is punishing his family by denying them the additional income that would accrue from the promotion.  It is not so easy to be generous. 

Conversely it is easier to convince oneself, when accepting promotion over the head of a friend as an individual with obligations, that it is, if not a selfless act, at least a necessary act that benefits people other than the individual.

So is the selfishness involved the material selfishness of acquisition or the immaterial selfishness of being able to justify and feel good about the decisions taken.

Youngsters have fewer excuses to ignore the "other".  They are without responsibilities.  They are irresponsible. They can focus on the community at large.  They are socialists.

Older types have more excuses to ignore the "other".  They have responsibilities.  They are responsible. They must focus on the family.  They are conservatives.

Older types without families tend to be developmentally arrested, irresponsible youngsters and thus socialists as well.  Given that they too, needs must, justify their actions, or lack of same to themselves, then (at least those that have voluntarily chosen to be irresponsible) they tend to be the loudest proselytizers for the course that they chose.

 

[Edward Campbell]

At the risk of repeating myself:

• Pierre Trudeau hated the foreign service and, very early on, starting in 1968, was hell-bent on reforming it. There was a rumour that Trudeau had applied for but was not accepted into the service and that’s why he hated it. I have no idea. What he did say was that the FS needed to reflect Canada – in other words it should not look like the service O.D. Skelton built. (And that was a bit odd, too, because Skelton was a notorious Anglophobe but he was enthralled with the Oxbridge experience. He tried to recruit very bright young men from middle class Orange Protestant backgrounds; the “test” of being “very bright” became Oxbridge. There were few (no?) Francophones in Skelton’s world. There were, as late as 1967, few in the Canadian foreign service.) Trudeau worked hard at alienating the “old guard” and at preventing their replacement by mirror images of themselves. He succeeded.

• Brian Mulroney hated the foreign service because, based on e.g.  Mike Pearson, Mitchell Sharp and Marcel Massé, he was convinced that it – and, indeed, the entire upper levels of the public service – was a Liberal hotbed. He plowed ahead with Trudeau’s reforms, also trying to make the service more ordinary. He succeeded, too.

• Mark makes an important point: leadership and personnel management in the foreign service, indeed, in my opinion most of the public service is sub-standard. In part this is a self-inflicted wound. Trade unions have done far, far more harm than good. I agree that the public service, as a whole, was badly underpaid in the ‘60s and into the ‘70s. But, for some people – especially the foreign service and, to a lesser degree the military, good “benefits” went a long way towards making up for a inadequate salary. I believe the market, itself, would have corrected the salary issue. Collective bargaining did it faster but it also did away with most of the benefits that made foreign service more than just tolerable. In any event, there is no doubt that the foreign service is unhappy and leadership, salaries and personnel management are major “dissatisfiers.” Good people are still recruited pace Mark, but we must not be surprised when they will not stay; good people can find satisfaction in many places.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There's another nail pounded squarely.  Most people do indeed change their priorities as they age.

But  ;D

Shades of Hutchison and Kames

I disagree on motive.  Is it selfish to focus one's efforts on advancing the prospects of your offspring in a competitive environment? 
As you rightly point out as people age more of them have offspring to consider.  The need to provide for them allows the individual to pursue  courses of action that when single would be seen only as self-serving and thus contemptible.  When the individual acts in loco parentis (or should that be in parentes) then the same act can be construed not as self-serving but as a necessary action to protect the interests of those that can't protect themselves.  It now becomes a generous act.

An individual without a family can afford to stand back and let a friend take a promotion because the loss of additional income only affects the individual.  It is easy to be generous.

The same individual with a family, foreswearing the promotion to the benefit of a friend, is punishing his family by denying them the additional income that would accrue from the promotion.  It is not so easy to be generous. 

Conversely it is easier to convince oneself, when accepting promotion over the head of a friend as an individual with obligations, that it is, if not a selfless act, at least a necessary act that benefits people other than the individual.

So is the selfishness involved the material selfishness of acquisition or the immaterial selfishness of being able to justify and feel good about the decisions taken.

Youngsters have fewer excuses to ignore the "other".  They are without responsibilities.  They are irresponsible. They can focus on the community at large.  They are socialists.

Older types have more excuses to ignore the "other".  They have responsibilities.  They are responsible. They must focus on the family.  They are conservatives.

Older types without families tend to be developmentally arrested, irresponsible youngsters and thus socialists as well.  Given that they too, needs must, justify their actions, or lack of same to themselves, then (at least those that have voluntarily chosen to be irresponsible) they tend to be the loudest proselytizers for the course that they chose.

I prefer a utilitarian approach.

I believe we should, each, do what seems best for us taking care, only, to do no harm to others. If we all enough of us do that the, broadly, we will make the world a “better” place. Doing what’s best for us, ourselves, is not just an economic choice; it applies, equally, to politics, economics, the environment, foreign affairs and social issues. Thus, age and family circumstance do not really matter: just the utility of the decisions we make.

Of course, not every individual has the exact same definition of utility; nor do we, all of us, even agree that utility ought to guide our actions. But, unbeknownst to us, we often are utilitarians, sometimes despite ourselves. Our remote ancestors cared for their children when they are young and defenceless in the hope that those children would see some utility in caring for the elders when they were old and defenceless. We translate that utilitarian instinct, over time and circumstance, into broader public services like schools and medical care and fire departments.

 

[Old Sweat]

I am still not sure what principles motivated Trudeau in his search of a foreign policy utopia. I suspect he would have loved to have taken Canada out of Norad and NATO and declared us a neutral. He then could have pursued closer ties with the Second and Third Worlds in forging a socialist internationale. He probably realized, or perhaps was persuaded that his goal was untenable and any attempt to weaken the Western Alliance and especially the security of the United States could have unforeseen consequences. His thinking did not seemed to be based on anything more sophisticated than on annoying the Americans and especially Richard Nixon by cozying up to all sorts of regimes that were openly hostile to the US. Secretly he perhaps both resented and envied the Americans. This manifested itself in openly belittling the USA whenever the opportunity presented itself.

As for Ms Kennedy, I think she may share most of Trudeau's ideals. Being a columnist of no great distinction, she has the luxury of writing atrocious twaddle in the full knowledge that all she will accomplish is to annoy many of her readers. Her friends in the chattering classes will, on the other hand, gush over her work as they pine for happier days spent in pursuit of the just society.

 

[a_majoor]

Even utilitarianism has its pitfalls.

One of the reasons we are caught in a destructive spiral of Socialism is that each individual has a vested interest in getting someone else to pay for their personal "benefits" (healthcare, housing, school etc.), without realizing that the collective result of millions of these decisions is lower standards of service, fewer opportunities and a collectively lower standard of living.

This is why 66% of Canadians will vote for "Progressive" parties like the NDP or Liberals (the parties promise each individual a benefit), and why so many were taken by the Obama campaign's promises of no tax increases for 95% af Americans. (Actually, Obama was right. There will be huge tax increases for 100% of Americans...)

Since each individual is working for his/her own benefit, the incentive of getting someone else to pay for "benefits" has the perverse incentive of driving everyone down.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Even utilitarianism has its pitfalls.
...

Of course it does. But, so does every other ethical system. Each individual must pick the system that seems most likely to meet his/her needs - so say the "good" liberals amongst us, anyway.

...
One of the reasons we are caught in a destructive spiral of Socialism is that each individual has a vested interest in getting someone else to pay for their personal "benefits" (healthcare, housing, school etc.), without realizing that the collective result of millions of these decisions is lower standards of service, fewer opportunities and a collectively lower standard of living.

This is why 66% of Canadians will vote for "Progressive" parties like the NDP or Liberals (the parties promise each individual a benefit), and why so many were taken by the Obama campaign's promises of no tax increases for 95% af Americans. (Actually, Obama was right. There will be huge tax increases for 100% of Americans...)

Since each individual is working for his/her own benefit, the incentive of getting someone else to pay for "benefits" has the perverse incentive of driving everyone down.

But those people are being selfish, not utilitarian. It is impossible for a utilitarian to be a socialist because (s)he must pick a system that does no (or, at the very least, minimal) harm to others. Socialism does do real, measurable harm to many (and it benefits few) so it is not an ethically acceptable choice.

But, most people are stupid, greedy and lazy, so ...

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am still not sure what principles motivated Trudeau in his search of a foreign policy utopia. I suspect he would have loved to have taken Canada out of Norad and NATO and declared us a neutral. He then could have pursued closer ties with the Second and Third Worlds in forging a socialist internationale. He probably realized, or perhaps was persuaded that his goal was untenable and any attempt to weaken the Western Alliance and especially the security of the United States could have unforeseen consequences. His thinking did not seemed to be based on anything more sophisticated than on annoying the Americans and especially Richard Nixon by cozying up to all sorts of regimes that were openly hostile to the US. Secretly he perhaps both resented and envied the Americans. This manifested itself in openly belittling the USA whenever the opportunity presented itself.

As for Ms Kennedy, I think she may share most of Trudeau's ideals. Being a columnist of no great distinction, she has the luxury of writing atrocious twaddle in the full knowledge that all she will accomplish is to annoy many of her readers. Her friends in the chattering classes will, on the other hand, gush over her work as they pine for happier days spent in pursuit of the just society.

Let's not forget that there was some thought to some of it. Provided by Ivan Head. I always thought Head was a rock solid man - ear to ear, solid as a rock.

 

[vonGarvin]

Ah, yes, Utilitarianism.  There are so many variants.  The individual-utilitarian view of the world, that each person is to be not-offended (at the least end of the spectrum) is pure and utter crap.  As for "the greatest good for the greatest number", that is the variant of Utilitarianism that most appeals to me.  Almost how Spock put it: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  Or the one."

 

[Edward Campbell]

There’s more: this times it’s not a Canadian using Kennedy or health care to slag Canada, it’s a Canadian slagging Americans in this opinion piece reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from Friday’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/can-obama-survive/article1268818/

Gerald Caplan: Can Obama survive?
The campaign against health-care reform fuels a huge number of hate-filled Americans who will never accept a black man as president

Gerald Caplan

Special to The Globe and Mail
Friday, Aug. 28, 2009

Barack Obama seemed remarkably upbeat the other day as he left for his first formal vacation as president. It's true that this is one of the coolest cats the world has ever seen, always apparently comfortable in his own skin, unflappable, dignified, whatever the winds swirling around him.

But that doesn't mean he's always right, and there are plenty of reasons to fear that he's very wrong if he doesn't think he's in big, deep trouble.

It's hard when discussing American politics not to want to break into constant superlatives, as in “the craziest” this or “the most extreme” that. I saw a clip the other day of conservative bloviator Charles Krauthammer asserting as a matter of indisputable fact that if Obama lost the health-care battle his administration was over. Full stop. Over. May as well turn the keys of the White House over to Sarah Palin. Yet it's barely half a year since his inauguration and 3½ to go. This is as preposterous a comment as is conceivable – you see, superlatives are already inescapable – yet his fellow pundits on the panel all mindlessly agreed.

What is true is that the U.S. President and the presidency are in great jeopardy, but not from the health-care battle as such. There are an abundance of dire warning signs.

First, the number of threatened assassinations is apparently several times greater than ever before, although the Secret Service seems strangely blasé about the weapons it allows people to carry at Obama's meetings. Would Clint Eastwood have permitted guys to attend carrying pistols, semi-automatic assault rifles, and signs saying “It's time to water the tree of liberty”? The allusion is to the revolutionary slogan coined by that old subversive Tom Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.” In practice, since Jefferson, only right-wingers can get away with such comments, because they're the patriots. If you're progressive and dare try, you're on the side of tyranny and terrorism, and treated accordingly.

Second, many millions of right-wing Americans are so viscerally hostile to Obama as to be barely under control. These range from “moderate” conservatives to radical conservatives to out-of-their-tree nutbar conservatives to apocalyptic Christian conservatives to violence-prone anti-gay and anti-choice cultural conservatives to plain old racists who can't stomach a black man becoming president. Remember that fully 46 per cent of all Americans voted against Obama, even knowing that Sarah Palin had a real crack at inheriting the presidency from an aging John McCain. And large numbers have never and will never accept the right of Barack Obama to be their president.

We forget, I sense, how bitter, extreme and hysterical his opponents were during that campaign. Remember their violent and menacing language – “Terrorist! Treason! Off with his head!” This wasn't just throw-away rhetoric. Sarah Palin's call to “real Americans” to oppose Obama – who obviously was not a real American – was not mere campaign rabble-rousing. It was what millions believed about this ultra-sophisticated black man – an uppity you-know-what, as far as they were concerned.

The campaign against a minimally progressive health-care plan is the opportunity to lash out for that huge number of hate-filled Americans who will never accept this man as their president. They challenge his American birthright. They carry weapons to his meetings. They call him a Nazi or Communist and paint toothbrush moustaches on his photos. They compare him to Hitler and Stalin. Here's Pastor Rick Joyner on alleged health-care changes: “Hitler and Stalin would have loved to have a means such as this for dispatching the millions they killed.” They want him out, and they're not too fussy about how.

The mob is inflamed by the extraordinarily powerful and irresponsible right-wing media stars – Limbaugh (compares Obama to Hitler), Glen Beck (Obama has “a deep-seated hatred for white people”), and of course Bill O'Reilly – who gleefully peddle the most outrageous lies: death panels for grannies, anyone? Euthanasia on demand? Emulating the Nazi program to murder the disabled? Meanwhile, not-quite-as-psychotic conservatives, including Republicans whom Obama still insists on trying to woo, use the same reckless language and raise the same phony accusations, consciously pouring oil on the flames that threaten to conflagrate the entire presidency. It's terrifying to think that these immoderate and irresponsible conservatives now control the Republican Party of the United States.

And behind them lie a virtual horde of lobbyists bound and determined to oppose almost every piece of legislation Obama presents. Under Bush, this army owned the government, often literally running the bureaucracy and writing the legislation. Now, with the thousands of Republican lobbyists joined by an ever-increasing number of Democrats, eager to cash in on lobbyists' big fast bucks, it's hard for Obama to get co-operation from any Republican politician or from many of his own Democrats.

Despite the deepening disillusionment of many liberals and sane centrists, for now Obama is their man and they know they need to take on the escalating onslaught from the right. It's instructive to see how they do so. Just as Obama makes nice with Republican politicians who slander him in the most outrageous and cynical ways, so Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert reflect the difference in strategies between liberals and reactionaries south of the border.

Where the one side publicly brandishes semi-automatic assault rifles and incitements to insurrection, Colbert and Stewart respond with stilettos and adorable satire. They're funnier, and enjoy themselves a lot, and we liberal fans share their self-satisfaction as they mug for the cameras after cleverly exposing the latest conservative hypocrisy or lie. The little-known truth is that shrewd conservatives cheer them on, realizing how ineffective they ultimately are. They know the Rambo crowd can't be turned back one sharp, deft cut at a time.

Sure it's too early to write the obituary of this administration. But it's not too early to be terrified by what's afoot. And before you accuse me of being paranoid, I'm not the one who believes Barack Obama is a foreigner who wants to kill American grandparents and disabled children.

Gerald Caplan is a former New Democratic Party national campaign director and author of The Betrayal of Africa

Of course there are rightwing “nutbars” and of course Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are always just “adorable” satirists, but c’mon, Gerry, this is waaaaaay over the top – even for a superannuated New Dipper.

Obama is just another professional politician – it’s all he’s ever done – from a particularly hard and dirty school of politics in Chicago. He is only thoroughly detested by a bit less the US population, about the same level as detested George W Bush.

 

[ltmaverick25]

I am still not sure what principles motivated Trudeau in his search of a foreign policy utopia. I suspect he would have loved to have taken Canada out of Norad and NATO and declared us a neutral.

No need to suspect.  It is a well documented fact that Trudeau wanted to end Canada's involvement in NATO and NORAD.  In fact, he almost did.  There were some in his cabinet that advocated against this, however, it was ambition of stronger economic ties with Europe that ultimately changed Trudeau's mind.  Trudeau went from absolutely wanting out of NATO, to viewing NATO as a necessary evil in order for him to acheive other political aims.  Though he did do his absolute best to destroy what was once widely viewed as the best NATO force in Europe prior to 1969.  Sadly he succeeded.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Ah, yes, Utilitarianism.  There are so many variants.  The individual-utilitarian view of the world, that each person is to be not-offended (at the least end of the spectrum) is pure and utter crap.  As for "the greatest good for the greatest number", that is the variant of Utilitarianism that most appeals to me.  Almost how Spock put it: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  Or the one."

Come on Rambler no one said you had to study philosophy at uni. You could have hung out with the cool guys, drinking beer and chasin' women ... oh, I forgot, that's what the philosophers did, along with a little grass. The only difference was they were usually too pissed or stoned to actually catch the women.